CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 30 mars 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sBBB64387 { text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBA59B8E7 { width:0.12pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA7249FE7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-21.3pt; text-align:justify } .s8F7318B7 { width:21.3pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9F7AB5CD { width:7.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s885C6E7F { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s8E6201BF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:10pt } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE950BED4 { width:22.54pt; display:inline-block } .s5EB9EA63 { width:158.75pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 29254/05 by Vasīlijs PETROVS against Latvia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30   March 2010 as a Chamber composed of:   Josep Casadevall, President,   Elisabet Fura,   Corneliu Bîrsan,   Alvina Gyulumyan,   Egbert Myjer,   Ineta Ziemele,   Ann Power, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 August 2005, Having regard to the unilateral declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 29 September 2009 with a view to terminating the proceedings and the applicant’s failure to submit any comments to that declaration, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Vasīlijs Petrovs, is a Latvian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Rīga. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mrs Inga Reine. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 31 March 1998 the applicant, a police officer, was informed of charges brought against him of receiving bribes. On 29 July 2003 by a decision of Rīga Regional Court the applicant was convicted and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. On the same date the applicant began serving the sentence. On 30 September 2004 the Supreme Court examined the applicant’s appeal and upheld the judgment of the lower court. On 22 April 2005 the Senate of the Supreme Court partly upheld the judgment of the appellate court and dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings against him. The applicant also complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the allegedly unfair outcome of the criminal proceedings and the falsification of evidence. The applicant further complained under Article 6 § 3 (d) concerning the refusal of the domestic courts to summon certain unspecified witnesses to the trial. THE LAW A. Length of proceedings   By a letter dated 29 September 2009 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this part of the application. They further requested the Court to strike the application out in accordance with Article   37 of the Convention. The declaration provided as follows:       “ The Government of the Republic of Latvia represented by their Agent Inga Reine (hereinafter – the Government) admit that the total length of criminal proceedings initiated against Vasīlijs Petrovs (hereinafter – the applicant) did not meet the standards enshrined in Article 6 paragraph 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter – the Convention). Being aware of that, the Government undertake to adopt all necessary measures in order to avoid similar infringements in future. Taking into account that the parties have failed to reach a friendly settlement in the present case, the Government declare that they offer to pay to the applicant the compensation in the amount of 1350 euros, this amount being the global sum and covering any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage together with any costs and expenses incurred, free of any taxes that may be applicable, with a view to terminating the proceedings pending before the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter – the Court) in the case of Petrovs v. Latvia (application no.   29254/05). The Government undertake to pay the above compensation within three months from the date of notification of the decision/judgment by the Court pursuant to Article   37 of the Convention. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on the amount, as established in the decision (judgment) by the Court. The above sum shall be transferred to the bank account indicated by the applicant.” The applicant was invited to submit any comments to the declaration by 26 November 2009. The applicant has not responded to the above request. The Court observes at the outset that the parties were unable to agree on the terms of a friendly settlement of the case. However, as it has stated in earlier cases (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no.   26307/95, §   74, ECHR 2003 ‑ VI, and Venera-Nord-Vest Borta A.G. v. Moldova , no.   31535/03, §   28, 13   February 2007), a distinction must be drawn between, on the one hand, declarations made in the context of strictly confidential friendly settlement proceedings (Article   38 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court) and, on the other hand, unilateral declarations made by a respondent Government in public and adversarial proceedings before the Court. In accordance with Article 38 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court, the Court will proceed on the basis of the Government’s unilateral declaration submitted outside the framework of friendly-settlement negotiations, and will disregard the parties’ statements made in the context of exploring the possibilities for a friendly settlement of the case and the reasons why the parties were unable to agree on the terms of a friendly settlement (see Estate of Nitschke v. Sweden , no.   6301/05, §   36, 27   September 2007) The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article   37   §   1   (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if: “for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”. In certain circumstances, the Court may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued. To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v.   Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no.   26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; Kapitonovs v. Latvia (striking out.), no. 16999/02, 24 June 2008, Urtāns v. Latvia , no. 25623/04   , 7 April 2009). As to whether it would be appropriate to strike out the present application on the basis of the unilateral declaration made by the Government, the Court points out that there is a considerable case-law with respect to the respondent State as concerns the scope and the nature of its obligations arising under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the guarantee of the right to a trial within a reasonable time in criminal proceedings (see, in particular, Lavents v. Latvia , no. 58442/00, §§ 85-87, 99-104, 28 November 2002; Freimanis and Līdums v. Latvia , nos.   73443/01, 74860/01, §§   106-109, 123-126, 9 February 2006; Kornakovs v.   Latvia , no. 61005/00, §§ 113-116, 120-130, 15   June 2006; Moisejevs v.   Latvia , no. 64846/01, §§ 136-143, 15 June 2006; Estrikh v.   Latvia , no.73819/01, §§ 136-143, 18 January 2007; and Čistiakov v.   Latvia , no.   67275/01, §§ 74-91, 8 February 2007). The Court has repeatedly found a violation of this obligation and has awarded just satisfaction in accordance with the requirements of Article 41 of the Convention. Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article   37   §   1(c)). The Court further notes that this decision constitutes a final resolution of this application only in so far as the proceedings before the Court are concerned. It is without prejudice to the use by the applicant of other remedies before the domestic courts to claim further compensation in respect of the length of the impugned proceedings. Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). Accordingly it should be struck out of the list.   B. Remaining complaints   The applicant also alleged violations of Articles 6 § 1 (fairness), 6   §   3 (d) and 13 of the Convention. In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court considers that this part of the application does not disclose any appearance of a violation of any of the above Articles of the Convention. It follows that these complaints are inadmissible under Article   35   § 3 as manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article   35   §   4 of the Convention.   For these reasons, the Court unanimously,   Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;   Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the length of proceedings, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;   Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.     Stanley Naismith   Josep Casadevall Deputy Registrar   President